Phil Fish believes game-streamers owe revenue to the developer.

[Yopaz]

I guess I can understand how he feels, because it's hard to make ends meet for game developers at times and you feel your content should have the same protection as music and films.

However there is a significant difference. If I were to watch Iron Man or The Avengers on Youtube with a couple friends then we'd go either "That was a great movie" or "That was a bad movie" and apart from discussions about why we thought what we thought then that would be the end of it. However when I look at gameplay footage and think "Dude, that looks awesome" that is the start of it. I then try to decide if I should buy it or not to do the same things.

They might be able to earn money if they get a cut from the people posting the footage, but then again, marketing is actually quite expensive. It's not free marketing if you analyse the full picture, but it is marketing that they don't have to organize or pay for directly.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think there needs to be more talk in this industry about developer entitlement.

I agree.

However, I'm going to go out on the radical limb that we need a better working definition of "fair use," particularly the "transformative" clause (since this is what's being argued for Let's Plays).

I just fear that trying to better define it will also further erode it since IP owners have gotten pretty much free reign.

Without the LPers, the content from which he's demanding his windfall wouldn't exist in the first place!

While I agree that he comes off as an entitled little prick, is there any hard data to actually suggest such a strong correlation between LPs and sales? I mean, I know every thread about this will have people coming forth, but self-reporting in specific defense of an idea is hardly strong enough evidence for a conclusion.

Watching Dear Ester on Youtube actually kept me from buying the game

I think there's probably a bigger problem at hand than your game being spoiled if it works like this.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

He seemed like a pretty decent guy when he was on Giant Bomb a few months ago, but now hes back to being a batshit lunatic again.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

Without the LPers, the content from which he's demanding his windfall wouldn't exist in the first place!

While I agree that he comes off as an entitled little prick, is there any hard data to actually suggest such a strong correlation between LPs and sales? I mean, I know every thread about this will have people coming forth, but self-reporting in specific defense of an idea is hardly strong enough evidence for a conclusion.

Oh, I was talking about the money that LPers are making, the money that Phil is demanding a part (if not all) of. That money wouldn't exist for his taking if the LPers weren't around in the first place.

As for increased game sales? No clue. I can only speak from personal experience that I've bought a few games after enjoying what I saw on YouTube. They were games that I was on the fence about, but watching some LPs convinced me to make the purchases, and I haven't been disappointed with any of them. Without a lot of disposable income, LPs are invaluable to my ability to be an informed consumer.

 

[Carnagath]

To anyone interested, TotalBiscuit made a video on the topic

Yeah that's pretty much all that needs to be said on this matter. It's the undeniable truth that the main reason why people watch Youtube content is the people making it more so than the game being played, and that's what devs get out of it, exposure of their game to the Youtuber's audience. I know I watch a few Youtubers regularly regardless of what they're playing (hell, one of them is Jim Sterling, since when he's not fumbling with the controls or being SJW-lite, he's actually pretty funny).

 

[carnex]

What if I am interested in the LPer's adventures instead of the game? In an RPG, my adventures will have very little relation to the LPer's adventures. No, I do not watch ANY non-open world RPG LP, unless it is MST style ie. retsu, match cast.

I think the word you are looking for in this context is "patent". You made that stuff, you charge everyone that uses that stuff for other stuff.

Let's start with notion that reason for compensation is either that you cost publisher sales or that you add a little work that you piggyback on someones truckload of work and take the profit. Like, for example, if you spend few hours re-cutting movie and then selling that re-cut version on your own.

Well, you can look at it that way. For example you can say that player creates his own story. Well, you would be right on that one. You get actors, camera, sound recording equipment and whatever else for a small amount of money (lets say 10 bucks for Fallout New Vegas these days) but also have to play with very limited amount of options to tell a story. In that regard I'm with you. As long as you create a story that is unique one could look over the fact that you ruin any discovery for player. In this case it's deeply into gray area and there is nobody but developer/publisher. You can cost sales if you ruin the sense of discovery of people, places and events but the re-cut analogy is variable depending on how much work you have done and how much of your own story flavor you add in there.

Then let's take a game where mechanics play distant second fiddle to to story or puzzles. Lets take Final Fantasy XIII as a game where you plow through fairly bland combat system to get to the story bits and Portal as a game where challenge and draw are from figuring out puzzled and scripted banter from antagonist AI. In both cases person can get most of experience from watching video. There is no interaction but core engagements of those games is gone. You can re-cut to some extent but even then linear story is told and puzzles are solved. They got lesser experience for sure but at the same time experience they will get upon purchasing the game after watching let's play in it's entirety is even less than initial watching. You are definitely costing sales and the earlier you post it the more you cost them.

Then there are procedurally generated games, rogue-likes for example, competitive multyplayer (shooters, sports, fighting), skill showoffs (combo vids, quake 3 trick jumps etc) where I would agree that player/presenter did enough to totally differentiate his work and also that spoiling factor is low enough that they pose no threat and it should be treated as fair use.

Those are just three of possibilities on that scale. This is really messed up part where there isn't really a good answer. And Total Biscuit's approach of "tubers are faultless" feel empty to say the least. Whoever comes with a satisfactory solution is a greater person then I am. And if you don't monetize it, you might be an asshole for spoiling games for people but it's your bloody right to be one...

 

[go-10]

Phil Fish thinks a lot of things but very few of them are coherent things

take youtube's most famous streamer Pewdiepie, just look at what he did for Flappy Birds. Say what you will but streamers are the easiest free way to promote your game.

Phil needs to shave his sideburns and join the rest of humanity. He's like the game designer version of Kanye West, his work borderlines genius, but his attitude is nothing short of dipshit

 

[Mikeyfell]

in the same way that film editors owe their salary to the camera men
and the same way that actors owe their salary to the writers

He doesn't even make games anymore so fuck him

 

[Racecarlock]

Let's players already get ad revenue, so there's no need for the publishers to pay them as well.

But here's the thing. Not only did they already buy a game, which is like lamborghini demanding a cut of ad revenue from videos of lamborghinis, but in the end it is, yes, free advertisement. The fact is even if the game completely sucks and the let's player totally bashes on it, you're still going to get the morbid curiosity crowd. The crowd who says "Ooh, that looks terrible, I'd better see it for myself.". So while you might make less sales, you'll still make sales.

Even if you didn't, the god damn let's player bought the fuckin' thing. Some games may be more like movies than others, but saying let's plays are akin to piracy is fucking ridiculous.

And how convenient, right? You've got david braben going against used sales first. Then the democracy 3 guy says "No, I don't want sales, consumers have too much control, fuck that.". Then this douche has to come and demand that either let's players pay him for the very privilege of uploading some gameplay footage of the game, and other people (Wild something games, Muxwell) strike down negative opinionated let's plays.

I honestly think that these guys want an industry where you buy completely blindly at FULL PRICE into every piece of shit that gets shoveled into your face. No reviews, no used sales, no regular sales to lessen the risk, no let's plays to let you know if the game is worth it. They just get their money and fuck you in the process. Or the let's players have to pay the developer money to make their own video and essentially advertise the game without the developer having to do any work nor paying the guy, but they want money from the guy.

This is fuckin' stupid, and I really think these developers need to get their entitled little hands out of our pockets. And they need to stop trying to create an industry where nobody ever buys anything because they're too afraid to buy anything because nobody ever gets any information anymore other than trailers and dev diaries, both of which promise jesus but then you get shit when you actually buy it. And then, undoubtedly, they will then go "Why aren't people buying our games anymore?" like the whiny, entitled fucks that they are.

 

[chocolate pickles]

I understand where he is coming from, but he sounds like a dick (never heard of him before). Streamers 'steal' content? Not really. Also, when making the comparison to streaming movies online, he seems to have forgotten one of the key differences between the two mediums: Interactivity. Kind of worrying he wouldn't realize that, since the article says he's a developer.

 

[Jandau]

The thing is, the streamer often plays a greater part in why I watch a "let's play" or anything like it. I watch Totalbiscuit and Jim Sterling to hear THEM and what THEY think. Hell, I enjoy Yahtzee's "Let's Drown Out" more as a podcast than as a video.

But all in all, I'm not too worried about this - if some morons start throwing their weight around and demanding to get a slice of the cake, people will stop doing coverage of their games and move on to other things. There are plenty of publishers and developers who understand that they are getting just as much if not more out of the arrangement. And while there are a few fringe cases like Pewdiepie who are getting rich off it, only the a of the most successful content producers can make it their full time job and make a solid living off it, while the vast majority can use it to supplement their income at best.

And Phil Fish is a moron, nothing new there...

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, I was talking about the money that LPers are making, the money that Phil is demanding a part (if not all) of. That money wouldn't exist for his taking if the LPers weren't around in the first place.

Ah. My bad. Well....

As for increased game sales? No clue. I can only speak from personal experience that I've bought a few games after enjoying what I saw on YouTube. They were games that I was on the fence about, but watching some LPs convinced me to make the purchases, and I haven't been disappointed with any of them. Without a lot of disposable income, LPs are invaluable to my ability to be an informed consumer.

One of the tricky issues here, one of the things an entitled guy like Phil Fish wouldn't like, is that I think the other side of the coin is good, too. I like watching Gameplay (not necessarily Let's Plays) of games because they can both encourage me and discourage me from buying. Sort of like reviews, only it's harder to fake with raw gameplay. And I think part of what sets people off is that it can be subtractive, but I would argue two points to that (Just listing them, not aiming them at you):

-I'm probably not buying the game anyway.

I'm a defensive shopper. I tend to not like to part with my money easily. When I look at reviews, I'm primarily looking for reasons to buy a game, starting from a position (usually) of neutral, but in which neutral still means "no buy." I can't speak for everyone, but one of the reasons I look for stuff is I'm out to be convinced. And bullshots and vertical slices and hype don't do it for me anymore. There are some games, like books and records, that are more or less a given from day one. For everything else? I'm cautious.

-If I don't buy your game, it's not the LPer's fault.

Or other footage provider. This is true even of games where the story is displayed, a concern Rockstar had. I enjoyed Red Dead Redemption even after the end was spoiled (because the journey was fun) and I enjoyed GTA V enough I played it twice. I'm looking for good gameplay, good story, and fun. The opposite will put me off, but not seeing things I like. I want good games and to avoid bad games.

But I can only speak for me.

 

[Brian Tams]

Well, at least Phil Fish didn't tell let's players to go kill themselves.

Remember people, baby steps.

 

[Kevin7557]

Let's players already get ad revenue, so there's no need for the publishers to pay them as well.

But here's the thing. Not only did they already buy a game, which is like lamborghini demanding a cut of ad revenue from videos of lamborghinis, but in the end it is, yes, free advertisement. The fact is even if the game completely sucks and the let's player totally bashes on it, you're still going to get the morbid curiosity crowd. The crowd who says "Ooh, that looks terrible, I'd better see it for myself.". So while you might make less sales, you'll still make sales.

Even if you didn't, the god damn let's player bought the fuckin' thing. Some games may be more like movies than others, but saying let's plays are akin to piracy is fucking ridiculous.

And how convenient, right? You've got david braben going against used sales first. Then the democracy 3 guy says "No, I don't want sales, consumers have too much control, fuck that.". Then this douche has to come and demand that either let's players pay him for the very privilege of uploading some gameplay footage of the game, and other people (Wild something games, Muxwell) strike down negative opinionated let's plays.

I honestly think that these guys want an industry where you buy completely blindly at FULL PRICE into every piece of shit that gets shoveled into your face. No reviews, no used sales, no regular sales to lessen the risk, no let's plays to let you know if the game is worth it. They just get their money and fuck you in the process. Or the let's players have to pay the developer money to make their own video and essentially advertise the game without the developer having to do any work nor paying the guy, but they want money from the guy.

This is fuckin' stupid, and I really think these developers need to get their entitled little hands out of our pockets. And they need to stop trying to create an industry where nobody ever buys anything because they're too afraid to buy anything because nobody ever gets any information anymore other than trailers and dev diaries, both of which promise jesus but then you get shit when you actually buy it. And then, undoubtedly, they will then go "Why aren't people buying our games anymore?" like the whiny, entitled fucks that they are.

Not a huge fan of the democracy dev after I asked him a question about features of social engineering which he mocked and then later puts in as an expansion, but what exactly did he say about consumers having to much problem?

 

[veloper]

I don't have a problem with that.

If you're going to do more than just a review with some footage and instead show the whole thing AND you're making money from it, then credits where credits are due, you do owe the creator of the original content.

 

[Kevin7557]

I don't have a problem with that.

If you're going to do more than just a review with some footage and instead show the whole thing AND you're making money from it, then credits where credits are due, you do owe the creator of the original content.

No you don't. If there is no one to play a game it doesn't do anything,the most popular let's players are popular because of their personalities not because of the games they play. Many companies do in fact recognize these people for what they are, free advertisement and like it when they play their games.

 

[Doom972]

He can believe whatever he wants, but seeing someone playing a game isn't like playing it yourself, so the viewer doesn't actually get to experience the game. It's basically free publicity for games, since people might want to buy a game if they see someone else play it and it looks like a good game.

 

[veloper]

I don't have a problem with that.

If you're going to do more than just a review with some footage and instead show the whole thing AND you're making money from it, then credits where credits are due, you do owe the creator of the original content.

No you don't. If there is no one to play a game it doesn't do anything,the most popular let's players are popular because of their personalities not because of the games they play. Many companies do in fact recognize these people for what they are, free advertisement and like it when they play their games.

If you don't press the play button, the movie DVD doesn't do anything either, so that's no argument.
Something can be said for displaying only the actual gameplay (the meat as it where of the FPS, RTS or platformer), but for story based games there is no fundamental difference between LPing the game and uploading a movie. You didn't make the movie, even if you are yapping over it.

Even for the truly interactive bits in a game, the LPer didn't start his own movie from scratch, he didn't make the whole thing, but here atleast it can be argued to cut them some slack. Showing how to play a game is closer to review territory, but it's not a cut&dry case even then.

As for advertisement, a LP can be that, but it can also be anti-advertisement and in any case it is still unasked for, so the LP isn't doing the developer any real favor.

 

[laggyteabag]

Well then shouldn't he then own the content creator revenue for any sales generated by the video?

And by his logic, shouldn't the content creator then owe Microsoft money for using the console, or AMD for using the graphics card to create the video etc, etc.

Making content based on a game on YouTube, or streaming it on Twitch is pretty much free advertising. There was a Gamasutra article [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219122/Is_YouTube_killing_the_traditional_games_press.php] that stated that being covered by a YouTube personality such as TotalBiscuit is like being on sale for a week, so for the developer to the claim that a person such as TotalBiscuit then owes them yet more money is just plain lunacy.

 

[xaszatm]

He can believe whatever he wants, but seeing someone playing a game isn't like playing it yourself, so the viewer doesn't actually get to experience the game. It's basically free publicity for games, since people might want to buy a game if they see someone else play it and it looks like a good game.

The problem with that theory is that there is no evidence to back up your claims. Sure, you and quite a few other people might have bought a game because of a Let's Play, but there isn't any evidence of Let's Plays contributing a signifiant amount of increased sales. Likewise, the developer's statement that Let's Plays discourage gamers has no evidence because there isn't hard data to back up either statement. It's an unknown entity so either excuse will not hold.

The other problem is that what constitutes a video game? You say that you HAVE to play something to truly experience it. Well, Phoenix Wright, Professor Layton, the entire Visual Novel and other book-like genres wouldn't exactly count as a video game then, would it? Because me personally playing Disgea Infinity really isn't that different from me playing it. Look, Let's Plays can be claimed in some circumstances, open world sandbox games like Minecraft, which is dependent on player creativity for fun, is more reliant on the player to find fun than the game itself. However, we cannot use this one example and apply it across the entire field of video games because that definition has encompassed so many different things.